At the outset of this research, a number of discussions with curriculum
researchers and developers focused on possible and desirable outcomes.
What did the research expect to discover about the gaps in the curriculum
process discussed in chapter 1? What could it offer as an alternative to
"intuitive leaps" and "professional judgements"? Was
it looking for a technique of decision making, whereby curriculum developers
could be taught their job and be held accountable for their performance?
Was it aiming to give them a procedure to increase their efficiency and
confidence? Was it seeking the definitive model for curriculum decision
making in TAFE? Was it going to produce algorithms or formulas to steer
curriculum developers through questions such as appeared in the original
project brief,

which learning should take place in a TAFE college and which should
occur on the job?

how should the content be balanced between initial career entry courses
and subsequent courses?

what should be the appropriate amount of theory needed to support the
skills to be developed?

how should content be sequenced most efficiently?

what account should be taken of escalation?

A further early question concerned the existence of patterns in various
kinds of curriculum development. Were different procedures necessary for
different kinds of courses? Were decisions different if the course content
was established before the structure, or the structure before the content?

One of the earliest exercises in this research was to draw up a thirty
two step procedural chart of curriculum decision making. This was distributed
to TAFE curriculum practitioners to comment on, and to try to improve in
the light of the curriculum development they were involved in. The comments
and suggestions were so many and varied that it became evident that there
were no patterns and that curriculum developers worked in many different
ways. One highly experienced person, after struggling with the exercise
for some time, summed up his attempt in these words.

A difficult task! I am clearly not satisfied with this. It still doesn't
capture the real dynamic that causes decisions to be made. Pressures, priorities,
energy levels, ability and readiness for change on the part of the lecturers,
balance, precedents, etc. You never start with a blank sheet, and the factors
can vary so much.

The gaps were obviously still there and the procedural exercise had
not helped identify or close them.

In choosing case studies as part of the research methodology, the researcher
and the advisory committee kept their options open on possible outcomes.
It was necessary to find out what curriculum developers did, what they
said about their decisions and what they thought were the ingredients of
decision making. What were the major issues for them? Did they use formulas
or algorithms to make decisions? Did they work in set procedural patterns?
Did they want stricter guidelines or better techniques? Were they anxiously
awaiting the ultimate vocational curriculum model to solve all their problems?

In this sense, the case studies guided the research and it shortly became
obvious that the original brief had not identified the right questions.
The answers would always be different, according to the circumstances,
because the circumstances were always different. There were no answers
which were always right. There were few patterns or trends. Curriculum
developers were not looking for a formalised way of answering curriculum
questions nor a restructured procedure.

TAFE procedural literature is adequate. Each curriculum branch has produced,
and appears to be continuously revising, various handbooks, manuals and
flow charts to help the curriculum developer through the requirements of
that particular TAFE system. These inform the developer of the committees
and boards which have to be reported to during the process. They ensure
the curriculum is properly supported and funded. They guarantee the course
will be accepted and accredited. They provide the checks and balances the
developer needs to work successfully within the system. Workshops in the
various curriculum branches are available to keep developers informed and
up to date. When teachers are seconded to work in curriculum development,
they are given training and guidance in the procedures laid down by their
TAFE Authority. The procedural aspects of curriculum development can be
assumed to be working reasonably well, as none of the interviewees referred
to them as a problem.

The research therefore was directed to those aspects of decision making
which were worrying curriculum developers most, the educational issues,
the data collection and the hidden influences on the members of the team.
The questions could then be redefined.

Were curriculum developers aware of vocational educational issues and
hence the curriculum options available to them? (See chapters 2 and 3.)

Were they collecting and using all the data necessary for them to make
effective decisions? (See chapter 3.)

Did they understand the hidden interplay of personal and social influences
affecting their decisions? (See chapter 7.)

Conclusions

Knowledge of curriculum options is available within TAFE Authorities.
TAFE literature on some of the major curriculum issues is outlined in chapters
1 to 3. Curriculum developers are expected to keep up to date with these
and other related questions. Some curriculum developers engage in research.
Curriculum workshops are held in the various curriculum branches to disseminate
and discuss new developments. Seconded teachers are presumed to know the
options relevant to their field of expertise and their knowledge is added
to curriculum knowledge. Although confusion does exist in the literature
and more serious study is necessary, on the whole, research and evaluation
is taking place and thought is being given to TAFE curriculum processes
in Australia.

However, biases and knowledge gaps are discernible from the case studies.
While a number of curriculum decisions are predetermined by outside factors,
such as industrial award agreements, there are others, we must suspect,
which are made without proper assessment of the options available. The
case studies brought to light considerable confusion on issues such as
modules, self pacing and mastery learning. There existed a very uneven
awareness of entry and exit issues, articulation and flexibility of testing.
There was virtual neglect of distance education and open learning options
and most forms of individualisation.

From this it can be concluded that curriculum developers, especially
the less experienced ones, need a better grounding in curriculum issues
and the curriculum options open to them.

The collection and use of relevant data is not a straightforward issue
and is complicated especially by its newness as a field of activity in
TAFE. The need for occupational needs surveys is now well enshrined in
the philosophy and directives of TAFE curriculum branches, but the significance
of such surveys and their manner of execution are not perceived in the
same way by different TAFE Authorities or by individual developers.

All curriculum developers contacted discussed their experiences and
their views on data collection, indicating that they believed it to be
an important part of their work. This level of awareness, however, is relatively
new in TAFE. Many who began in curriculum development, even as late as
the 1980s, can clearly remember examples of "arm chair" development
and "desk jobs". The process of systematic occupational analysis,
coming initially from the United States, was difficult to learn and expensive
to execute, and the number of experts in Australia remained low. Simpler
methods like DACUM and the Search Conference technique were adopted as
alternatives by some curriculum branches. Less formal methods were tried
as developers applied common sense approaches to the theories of needs
assessment.

Approaches are wide and varied and there are strong opinions for and
against the various methods. This was evident from the case studies. Data
were collected and never analysed; too much data were collected; "fast
track" methods were criticised; detailed task analysis methods were
both extolled and condemned. The comments mainly concerned occupational
data, but later problems indicated gaps in the collection and assimilation
of all data, occupational, course and context. Problems were identified
arising from resistance from accreditation bodies, teachers, students,
funding and resourcing bodies and so on. Some of these problems could have
been avoided if all context data had been available in advance.

The obvious conclusion is that at least some curriculum developers
require more guidance and more confidence in the art of choosing which
data are needed to make more effective decisions.

It is in the area of interaction of hidden personal, group and intergroup
influences, however, that the bulk of the energy appears to be expended.
This is the area which is least researched and discussed in its relation
to curriculum development. The concepts have not yet been formulated, or
even fully articulated.

Curriculum developers know these forces exist. They talk about them
a lot, but as individually occurring problems, frustrations or battles
of will. Many would see them as things which have gone wrong in the curriculum
process, rather than as part of the process. The interviewees described
their emotions and their states of mind in response to these forces and
they were frequently negative. Tiredness, frustration, lack of understanding,
difficulty, jealousy and hostility were words occurring throughout the
interviews. On the other hand, there was also the joy, triumph and satisfaction
of decisions well fought and won.

The high emotional response of the curriculum developers to their work
is a factor which this research did not anticipate, and it was not easy
to report it within the structure of the case study chapters. Chapter 7
grew out of the parts of the interviews which could not be reported under
the interview headings.

It is not easy to summarise the variety of fluid, complex and emotional
situations with which curriculum development deals. It must cope with rapidly
increasing mobility and knowledge on all fronts, with economic and technological
fluctuation and change, and with an array of related psychological and
sociological pressures, fears and expectations. These are the factors which
worry curriculum developers.

Types of forces and influences are recognisable and lists of related
factors could no doubt be drawn up from listening to curriculum developers.
However none of these lists would coincide with other lists. There would
be no constancy. It is their fluidity and unexpectedness that makes them
so difficult to tie down. This surely is the area of curriculum expertise
which practitioners choose to call "intuition" and "professional
judgement", as there are not, as yet, many other words to describe
it.

The conclusion to be drawn here is that there is very little guidance
available to help curriculum developers anticipate or deal with the hidden
forces of the curriculum process, and further research is needed in this
area.

Towards a solution

Curriculum developers need help in three major areas, general curriculum
issues, data collection and the "hidden" influences on the development
process. However, given the dynamic nature of curriculum development and
the uniqueness of each curriculum situation, it would be a serious mistake
to advocate certain things a developer must know or do. Rather there should
be a set of principles or guidelines with which developers are familiar
and within which they can search for appropriate answers to suit each different
situation.

In the same way as a researcher develops a new and different proposal
for each new project, curriculum developers should define the questions
anew for each curriculum, read the relevant literature and choose suitable
methods to collect their data. The methods cannot be predetermined, but
should flow on from the questions.

The keynote of curriculum decision making lies in adaptability and flexibility.
It is with this in mind that the reader should study the guidelines set
out in the rest of this chapter. Flexibility and adaptability, however,
are themselves only relative. Even during the life of this research project,
there was a growth in the importance of cost and time as the major constraints
on curriculum decision making. With these parameters over riding all other
considerations, there is an even greater need for curriculum development
to be flexible and for the developer to be adaptable. It also means that
developers are likely to become more publicly accountable for their decisions.
Accountability, in the sense of the guidelines set out in the following
sections, means that developers can indicate that they fully understand
the options available and can explain and justify their choices. The following
sections have been compiled from the issues discussed in this book and
have been structured under three headings to reflect the conclusions reached
in this chapter.

Curriculum options

This section consists of a series of questions based mainly on the issues
discussed in the first three chapters of this book. Curriculum developers
should be well versed in the changing educational debates surrounding these
issues. Each question should be examined in the context of a further set
of subquestions, such as

Are you familiar with the debate on this issue?

Are you aware of the factors which could influence your decisions?

What choice would you prefer in this particular case?

Why?

What do others involved in this project think?

In what circumstances might you change your mind?

These subquestions could then be applied to each of the following questions
on curriculum process.

What methods and processes will you select to gather all the data you
need?

How will you ensure an acceptable balance between training needs and
general education?

How will you select the tasks which should be included in this course,
which ones will be omitted or deferred to a later course and which ones
could best be taught on the job?

What will your priorities be in structuring and sequencing the components
of this particular course?

To what extent will you consider articulation and escalation in planning
this course?

Will you choose a subject or modular approach or a combination of both?
7. Is it necessary to reconsider or extend the normal practice on entry
level provisions?

Will you choose marks or mastery methods of testing and assessment
in these circumstances?

Will students taking this course benefit from self learning methods
and materials?

Are there other educational issues which should be considered in developing
this course? Such as

access, equity and participation

articulation, transfer of credit

life skills, remedial skills, broad educational skills

level of difficulty, language level needed

distance education, open learning, fleximode options

resource development

staff development

implementation.

Curriculum data

The underlying principle of data collection is that curriculum developers
should have the right amount of relevant information to answer the questions
which will come up in the development process. It must be collected speedily
and cost effectively. These questions provide a guide to the sort of data
you will be seeking.

1. Do you have sufficient occupational data to indicate

the need for curriculum development

the rate of change in the industry

future impact of technological change

specific skills needed

competencies and qualities needed

standards

employee characteristics

employee mobility

prerequisite student requirements

potential for cooperative TAFE industry training

manpower planning policies

registration and accreditation requirements?

2. Do you have data on the expected student group?

age

sex

educational background

work experience

geographical distribution

time available for study

special needs.

3. Do you have data on previous or similar courses?

attrition rate

length

attendance patterns

subjects or modules

amount of choice

level of difficulty

entry requirements

entry and exit points

articulation

mode of study

tests and examinations

relevance to client groups

problems

parts which can be used in the new course.

4. Do you have data on the constraints of

government policy

professional associations

unions

accreditation bodies

TAFE policy and procedures

time for development

finance

TAFE colleges

staff development

materials and equipment needed

other resources?

Hidden curriculum influences

Hidden curriculum influences are the most complex and most neglected
part of the curriculum decision making process. The following questions
are in the form of a check list of ideas, insights and techniques which
curriculum developers have experienced in their work. They are offered
here more to encourage further research and discussion than as a panacea
for all the problems of curriculum development. They are set out in the
order in which they occur in the discussion in chapter 7.

1. Are you familiar with various negotiating strategies and expectations
you might need in curriculum development?

bargaining

making compromises

lobbying

the art of gentle persuasion

building good relationships

incremental change

limited reform

pragmatism

careful planning

growth of concepts.

2. Are you conscious of the factors of sharing which could be significant
in improving curriculum development?

evolution of concepts

dissemination of information

keeping in touch with others' efforts

borrowing ideas

growth of professional trust

communication.

3. Are you comfortable with group processes and the interpersonal skills
which might influence the curriculum outcomes?

group dynamics

social, intellectual and professional rules

personal effort

control and ownership issues

the use of outside experts

valency

generating solutions

taking risks

stages of decision making

jumping decision making stages

bias

knowledge set

4. Are you able to adapt to the dilemmas of role conflict?

professional ideology

falsity, obscurity and morality

creativity and technical expertise

closed and open systems

commerce, politics, career and artistic integrity

educational integrity and industrial pressure

self regulation and bureaucratic control

leadership

conflicting value systems.

5. Are you able to weigh and balance the factors threatening to influence
your decisions?